WI Hitler had choosen to invest more in bombers and throw a ton of planes at the UK?

Would the UK win the fight over the air in a prolonged campain vs Germany on there own?

  • It would be like in OTL, but it would take longer. The UK would prevail.

    Votes: 46 80.7%
  • It would crush the UK air force, but there navy would still prevent the germans from invading.

    Votes: 10 17.5%
  • It's likely the German's would have caputured the UK in this ATL.

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    57
Basically, Germany has no chance of winning a long-term air campaign against the UK, even if they voluntarily bankrupted their own economy doing so. what benefit does bombing a nation give you, if that nation is largely unscathed, and you don't have the resources or capabilities of invading it directly.

Though dropping huge loadouts from very large heights is possible, forget about any sort of precision to the bombing. Yes, even if it was a carpet bombing. The bombs could fly off into all sorts of wild directions during the drop and though they'd hit and damage something, a lot of them could be wasted ineffectivelly.

they started launching magnetic mines before the planned larger numbers had been built and then fumbled one away which allowed reverse engineering. they also failed to discern effects of butterfly bombs, the weapon that could have effectively been launched from high altitudes.

they did not need to force GB from the war to have disrupted their wartime production more.
 
In the Hitler snake pit it takes strong personality to carve out resources and once General Wever perished the strategic bomber lost its best potential advocate. However, the decision to focus on lighter bombers was not stupid, given that for Germany any bomber offensive would either cross hostile France to reach the UK or only be channeled out over the North Sea, thus one can appreciate a pessimistic view of strategic bombing for Germany to wage. It might be useful versus France, but then medium bombers likely seem adequate and beyond the border region France is not target rich anyway. Given all the competing needs to rearm the decision was not unforgivable. Until one has France, the Low Countries and Norway in the bag, big bombers seem a waste of effort. Even Herr Hitler had no such foresight.

Personally I can see how the rockets likely looked far better long-term given they are immune to intercept, require no escorts and if cheap enough in mass have about the same effect. Yet both strategic bombing and the rockets both proved to be far less than promised until far more mature. Germany might have been better served improving bombs rather than the bomber, they certainly seemed to get moving that direction with Air-to-Ship missiles that later showed accuracy over mass to good effect.

My opinion is that had the war settled into a UK versus Germany strategic bombing war then both sides effectively create trench warfare in the sky only with destruction and death in depth, a stalemate with increasing body count. The RAF hurt Germany but I have yet to find anyone who argues that bombing was winning the war until the USAAF poured into the complimentary daylight campaign and even that taxed the USA's resources. Overall Germany likely needed the long range heavy bomber more in the East but as others observe the gamble was a fast war fought tactically, never a true strategic war, especially not fought with attrition. The best outcome for Germany was a better Battle of Britain overall, not dependent on strategic bombers, far greater numbers of submarines early and/or surface raiders, and being in a position to offer peace that was credible, and I have no faith Hitler was going to achieve that post-Munich.
 
A misunderstanding of why Hitler believed in quick victories: because it was his only valid option. Hitler recognized sometime in 1938 (we can't pin the exact date) was that the beginning of mobilization in Germany's economically stronger enemies meant that Germany had to go to war soon and achieve victory quickly. In final analysis, a Hitler willing to compromise on a quick victory is one who is going to be unwilling to have a war at all, much less bet on big gambles like the Manstein Plan.
Well, I did say "butterfly", didn't I?
Maybe he thinks the air war can break France in 6 months? But goes for the Manstein opportunity when he sees it.
I just think the scenario is pointless going for heavy bombers in an "otherwise normal ATL", but a bit more emphasis on long range escort and fast survivable medium bombers might help and cause troubles that merits some consideration?
 
Personally I can see how the rockets likely looked far better long-term given they are immune to intercept, require no escorts and if cheap enough in mass have about the same effect. Yet both strategic bombing and the rockets both proved to be far less than promised until far more mature. Germany might have been better served improving bombs rather than the bomber, they certainly seemed to get moving that direction with Air-to-Ship missiles that later showed accuracy over mass to good effect.

from time of Spanish Civil War the LW understood difficulty hitting ships and they started with SC-250 bomb trying to add some guidance control, the end result being (unpowered) Fritz-X.

always envision wire-controlled SC-250 bombs for FW-200 Condor leaving aside trying to develop the radio control (during wartime) which ended up being jammed anyway and they were back to wire-controlled (never deployed.)

(this scenario for attacking merchant ships)
 
Top